• FelixQui
  • ranking : Classic Member
  • email : FelixQui@gmail.com
  • created : 2007-10-06
  • entry : 32
  • visitors : 14576
  • votes : 11
  • send msg :
A Happy One
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui
Friday , April 4 , 2008
The Truth about UFOs
Posted by FelixQui , Reader : 470 , 05:40:12   | Category : Epistemology  
Print


As fellow blogger Dalmasian noted in his comment 6, on "More Evil in Tibet",  whilst agreeing that it is a good thing that we can freely discuss such things, "many people who supposedly witnessed sightings of UFOs are afraid of being ridiculed in public and have elected to keep their mouth shut."
There is a very (very) simple reason for this: much of the speculation about UFOs is so profoundly idiotic that no sensible person would wish to be sullied by association.

First, are there UFOs? Yes. No sensible person would argue otherwise.
What does this mean? Well, it means that there are object that fly around and for which fairly certain identification is not possible. That is, we don't know what they are. Sometimes when I'm walking through Lumpini Park, something whizzes through my field of vision, and I don't know it it's a bug or a bit of blown leaf. That is a UFO. Sometimes people have a perception of something in the sky, and they don't know what it is. That's a UFO. Sometimes pilots have them, just like I do. Sometimes something is captured on film that can not be readily identified: another UFO.

Now comes the interesting bit.
Some people feel, on the basis of precisely zero, as in none whatsoever, evidence that some or all UFOs must be alien spacecraft visiting our planet. There is not now and never has been a shred of verifiable evidence to support such a belief. And the extreme improbability of such an explanation renders it literally incredible. There might be some such evidence next week, which will be truly exciting. There may well be highly intelligent life elsewhere in teh universe, but to date, we have zero evidence to say that there is.

This presents a real problem for those with a compulsion to entertain such a belief about UFOs, so they create the fiction of a government cover up. There is, of course, no supporting evidence for this fiction. Worse, the fiction usually involves all major world governments, over a period of decades. This, sadly for the UFOologists, creates an even bigger problem: How to explain such perfect and sustained cooperation between states that are normally at loggerheads over everything, some of whose governments change abruptly to oponents of the former rulers. THis is so deeply contrary to the readily observable facts of human nature that it requires the extra belief that all senior politicans are actually aliens or fully remote controlled by aliens, who maintain a facade of human behaviour with the typical conflicts and all the rest thrown in. At this point, the circle has to widen a little more, because any close aids would notice the disccrepancies, so the widening circle eventualy reaches the point where the only person on earth who isn't actually an alien or in the employ of aliens from outer space is the devout UFOologist.

The semi-rational believer then asks himself: But why would the aliens go to all that trouble just to delude me? Why am I that special? Why replace everyone else on earth and pretend to cover up when I'm actually the only person on earth who is still a person? Wouldn't it be easier just to take me home with them?
We leave these ultimate questions for the solipsistically inclined UFOologist to answer. They take us into unchartered psycholgical territory where there be unicorns and other Unidentified Fantasy Objects, along with crystal skulls imbued with who knows what esoteric knowledge, pyramid homes on Mars where live ancestral humans of terrible power, and so on.


Read comment

comment 49
Hermano_Lobo date : 05/04/2008 time : 22.08
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez


This photo of UFO's is actually a reflection of lights inside the building on the windows.
comment 48
Hermano_Lobo date : 05/04/2008 time : 22.04
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez


The Ray Santilli Alien autopsy film is an interesting case. When I first saw it it looked a complete fake.

It was a fake in my opinion, but Santilli had a real film that because of its age it had almost completely disintegrated.
He based the fake film on the one or two real slides of the film he had that could still be viewed.

Will we ever find out the truth ?

I doubt it.
comment 47
Hermano_Lobo date : 05/04/2008 time : 21.58
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez


There are some who reflect this famous poster.

If there were no UFO's or Aliens visiting earth.

It would be very boring ?
comment 46
Ian date : 05/04/2008 time : 21.14
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Obey, I can offer one possible answer to your last question:-)
If you look at human technology it is not an evenly expanding sphere, it is more like an amoeba thrusting out pseudopods. We will have sudden advances in nuclear physics, then sudden advances in medicine, or aviation etc. Thus I do not find it impossible to envisage an alien race with faster than light travel, or suspended animation technology, yet behind us in radiolocation techniques. Perhaps they evolved near a powerful radio star which blanketted the entire radio spectrum:-)
comment 45
Obeyno1kinobe date : 05/04/2008 time : 21.02
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/obeyno1

Aliens could be visiting our planet.

I'll avoid the supernatural debate, other than to say our current technology would make us appear as gods to the peoples 5000 years ago. Even the Spanish were mistaken for Gods by the Aztecs.

I think life on other planets somewhere is highly likely. Given the number of galaxies and stars.

The distance to the nearest stars is hard to comprehend. Even the edge of our solar system takes years. Light takes several years to reach here from the closest, and if the scientists are correct, 13 billion years from the fartherest away as seen by Hubble.

And light is pretty fast.

Having said that, we could not fly 110 years ago, now we can reach the moon. Where will we be in another 100, or a 1000. How advanced would a species be that has 1,000,000 years of science. And maybe 10,000 years of travel would be perceived differently. Who knows what form other intelligent life will take.

Anyway, I doubt the UFO's people see or the alien abduction experiences are alien related.

Firstly people think tend to think that our senses are like a video camera. They aren't. Even our sense of sight is imperfect. We miss things right in front of our eyes (magic), we see strange things. I've seen strange things. I saw a show about people who believed in fairies. One guy pointed out some right in front of the camera. The camera couldn't see anything. Maybe he had some special ability. But I think it was just his mind playing tricks.

Throw in our dreams. They look and feel real. I have experience with a child who sleep walks and talks and sees things I don't.

Then hypnotism.

Then there is Felix point around how we interpret things when conscious.

It is fascinating that the descriptions of aliens and space ships match the myths of our times. Alien visitations in the era of spaceflight.
Succubus visitations in the old days. Goblins and demons. Even culture has an effect. Western ghosts and demons look different to Eastern ones, or African ones. Because the interpretation is in peoples head

I think some people who perceive weird things are telling the truth. Most times it is just their brains way of interpreting something their senses don't fully comprehend. Or a brain fart, or mental hiccup.

What is more difficult to understand is the funny radar sightings. But it seems really strange to me that aliens who can cross light years, can't avoid radar as well as a US stealth bomber.
comment 44
FelixQui date : 05/04/2008 time : 20.03
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ian,
Sheldrake's website and ideas do look interesting and worth a closer look. I'll look through it over the next day or two.
Thanks for pointing it out.
comment 43
Ian date : 05/04/2008 time : 19.58
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Felix, on a personal note, I think it is the strength with which you argue I find a bit off putting. I am from a generation that would say, "I don't think that is correct", rather than bluntly saying, "that is false".
We are after all debating an issue on the frontier of science, some would say fringe:-) As such I don't really feel that dogmatic statements are appropriate, we are at best exchanging conflicting opinions. I base much of my opinion on circumstantial or anecdotal incidents, you dismiss it for that very same reason:-) Thus it really boils down to how as individuals we process information.
comment 42
Ian date : 05/04/2008 time : 19.50
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Felix, I did a search just now, it seems there is serious research taking place and by eminently qualified scientists. I am still ploughing my way through but you could start here,
http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html
The guy seems to have pinched many of my ideas, I bet my daughter has been talking to him, he was her tutor at one point:-)
comment 41
FelixQui date : 05/04/2008 time : 19.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ian,
I sometimes make false statements. For example, in another blog, I misread your word "mathematics" for "mathematicians" and subsequently made a whole strong of falsely based questions because of my false belief about what you had written. I sometimes make false statements, and I'm sure I make more than the ones I later realise were wrong.

When I say a statment is false, it is no reflection at all on the character of the person who made it. People of whatever character will inevitably make false statements if they make many at all. I do, and everyone I know does from time to time.
comment 40
Hermano_Lobo date : 05/04/2008 time : 19.32
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez

It is very easy to be a skeptic.

A believer has more to do with religion.
comment 39
FelixQui date : 05/04/2008 time : 19.28
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ian,
I was not being sarcastic when I said that proof of telepathy would be the breakthrough of the millenium, nor was I being sarcastic when I said it would ensure eternal fame on the person who did it - a proof of telepathy really would be a discovery of that kind of magnitude. But that does make us wonder why a more serious effort is not made by its believers to do the research.

My comment that they be abstaining so as not to upset cynics like me was sarcastic, but the underlying question is not. There is a real puzzle that begs an answer. unless the answer is the one I suggested in my last comment, the one that rules out the possibility of proof.
comment 38
FelixQui date : 05/04/2008 time : 19.22
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ian,
Your exact words are: "Telepathy has been a recognised phenomenon for millenia" (C. 35). I used the word phenomena because it was the word you used. I did not change concept for phenomena. The word 'concept' does not occur in your comment 35.

You also wrote: 'When you write, " 'CLAIMS' of telepathy have been a recognised phenomena for millenia." You are up to your usual trick of playing with words, you alter the semantics of my statement to suit yourself. '

I did NOT alter the semantics of your statement at all. I was saying that your statement was wrong, and that the alternative statement that I proposed was true.

However, If you would like an example of someone playing with semantics, see comments 9 (yours), 10 (Narcissus') and 13 (mine) below.

I agree completely that no one has ever seen an electron. Things do not need to be seen to be known to exist. They do , however, need SOME supporting evidence to be believed in. The existence of electrons, and the way more exotic particles that make them up, are never supported by direct human observation of the particles in question. THey could not be.

No, I didn't ignore your comment about the "wild" nature of telepathy. I thought that by inviting sympathetic researchers to do the experiments that the harmful cynical influence would be removed. That may have been a misunderstanding on my part. But that also brings us to the question of under what circumstances telepathy could EVER be reliably observed. Are there ANY such circumstances? Or do you mean that it necessarily can never be shown to exist? I was not simply being sarcastic. The question as to why believers do not do the required research is a genuinely puzzling question. Do they, as you appear to have suggested, also believe that in principle it can not shown to be real? Which begs the rather obvious ????
comment 37
Ian date : 05/04/2008 time : 18.39
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Felix, social insect behaviour is well researched and understood, by combining them with birds and fish is your way of confusing the issue.
I aware aware of the findings of high speed photography, they show neither a consistent ripple effect, nor fluid flow detection effects, except in large animals.
With smaller birds and fish it is a uniform instantaneous change of direction, even if no predators are present. Yes, I know there are scientists who deny this, so I keep an open mind.

When you write, " 'CLAIMS' of telepathy have been a recognised phenomena for millenia." You are up to your usual trick of playing with words, you alter the semantics of my statement to suit yourself.
Incidentally you also replaced my word "concept" with "phenomena" just to strengthen your semantic trickery.

Claims for the existence of the electron have existed for over a century, there are many proofs of this claim. However, in reality no one has ever seen a electron.

You further write, "if people such as yourself are so confident of its reality, why don't you put it to the test? " Well I have always been of the mind that someone who defends his position with sarcasm is defending a weak position.

I am not in the habit of making false statements, and that is a reflection on my character, at worse I will make statements which are debateable.
As I have said there are several theories on "flock" behaviour, to me parsimony seems to support a group mind concept.

You have totally ignored my comment that telepathy is a "wild" ability, often manifested under stress and therefore unlikely to be testable by methods that would satisfy a purist.

In essence I find your attempts at demolishing my ideas unsuccessful and you methods a little bit unsavoury.
comment 36
FelixQui date : 05/04/2008 time : 17.54
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ian,
I really do not understand how you can make such absurd statements as "group behavior in birds and fish is best explained by a group mind hypothesis, this requires a form of telepathy".
I suggest you read some of the work of David Sloan Wilson on this topic.
The apparent group level intelligence of bee swarms and other animals can be very well explained by much more elegant theories, which have teh advantage of being consistent with what is observed when tiny camera's are used to monitor carefully what is happening.

I made the statement "No such theory requires teh existence of telepathy. There is no evidence whatever to support belief in it," because that statement is true.

If you know of any set of observations that require a theory that requires that telepathy exist, then please point me to it. But please do not repeat the false example you gave in comment 35, and please do not say that I'm making untrue statements unless you can back up such a claim.

Telepathy has NOT been a recognised phenomena for millenia. Claims of telepathy have been a recognised phenomena for millenia. The two are not at all the same. Claims about pearly white unicorns were also a recognised phenomena for several centuries, but there was never a single recognised observation of a pearly white unicorn.

I'm not denying that such a thing might exist, but if people such as yourself are so confident of its reality, why don't you put it to the test? Think of the rewards for providing real evidence of such a thing! Your fame would be assured forever. It would be an enormous contribution to science. So why not make the piddling investment needed? It does boggle the imagination a little that NONE of the die hard supporters of this totally unwarranted hypothesis have the courage to actually put their beliefs to the test. Are they afraid of teh fame? Scared of upsetting skeptics like myself?

Of course the telecom industry would not rejoice if you prove it's real, but they WON'T stop you putting up your money to do teh research. i don't think they will a single night's sleep worrying about the results of the experiments to prove telepathy. As you acknowledged in comment 32, every methodologically sound experiment done so far has failed to show it. The evidence is totally against it. It is not required by any theory. But as soon as someone makes the effort and proves it, I will bestow my accolades on them along with the rest of humanity. It will, truly, be the scientific breakthough of the millenium.

So what's stopping the believers?
comment 35
Ian date : 05/04/2008 time : 16.59
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Felix, I really do not understand how you can make such personal statements as if they are categorical truths, "No such theory requires teh existence of telepathy. There is no evidence whatever to support belief in it. "

This is simply not true!

Felix, group behavior in birds and fish is best explained by a group mind hypothesis, this requires a form of telepathy.
If the only way to explore the electron was to wait for a lightning strike we would not know much.
Telepathy has been a recognised phenomenon for millenia, but it is a freak event, just like lightning, it does not perform to order for the benefit of a cynical scientist. Where something is the product of a human mind, such as telepathy, it is easy to see that an environment of critical disbelief could destroy that ability.
Birds are born with wings, but in most species the young have to be tought to use them and to fly. Speak to a few mothers, they will tell you that they often know when something is wrong with their baby, even if in another room.
I am sure you are familiar with cases where research has been stopped or hampered by vested interests in industry. look at the massive resistance of the oil industry to alternative fuel sources, where is you hydrogen gas or electric car, what happened to the Wankel engine.
Imagine what the telecom industry would do if someone seriously researched telepathy and started to make some breakthroughs.
comment 34
FelixQui date : 05/04/2008 time : 16.22
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ian,
Scientists kept looking for the neutrino because their best theories that explained the universe at a deep level required its existence.
No such theory requires teh existence of telepathy. There is no evidence whatever to support belief in it. A few brief experiments which once again confirm the non-existence of what has been testable for millenia (it isn't rocket science, and does not need high energy particle accelerators) is perfectly adequate to dismiss it.

However, those who remain convinced of its reality are free to do the research that proves otherwise. The question must be asked: Why don't they?
Because they lack the faith to put their beliefs to such a test for fear that those beliefs will, yet again, be proved unfounded.
comment 33
FelixQui date : 05/04/2008 time : 16.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Why don't those who take such things as the paranormal seriously put up the money to risk giving them a solid foundation?
It is teh risk that deters them. And their own awareness of the fragility of such beliefs.
comment 32
Ian date : 05/04/2008 time : 15.56
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

"Real Science", is this like "Organic Food"? What is inorganic food, what is unreal science?
science derives from the Latin word "scientia" meaning "knowledge". It has also come to mean the manner in which such knowledge is sought.
Thus if I study Tarot cards and the meanings of the major an minor arcanas, this is science, some might say it is an esoteric science but it is still science.
If I study Ley lines in Europe or dragon paths in China, it is still science, as is the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot or the Yeti.
Science starts with data, whether it is the alignment of churchs on a map of England, or temples on a map of China, or plaster casts of footprints and blurred photos of hairy humanoids.
Given the data one searches for pattern and substantiation, from this one derives theories and hypotheses. Some of these theories a particular individual may find outlandish, even incredible, but they are none the less scientific theories within the meaning of the term. Unless one can derive a theory which better fits these facts no theory is better than another. Sometimes the laws of parsimony are applicable, othertimes accepted paradigms can influence our choice of theory, but paradigms are not immutable.
In my lifetime I have seen many scientific "truths" become untrue, I have seen major paridigm shifts, I have seen science moving into areas that were once the preserves of religion, I have seen entire new branches of science come into existence. Science could well have as its motto, "mutatis mutandis", science is constantly changing, redefining itself, evolving.
When scientists stop thinking the unthinkable, stop believing the unbelievable, lose the ability to wonder, then science will stagnate.
when a nuclear physicist invents a new particle in order to explain an event or balance an equation, he goes looking for it. He build bigger and more expensive machines in his search for this elusive particle. If at first he has no success, he builds even bigger machines. No one says, "Hey man, this is not science, its just your overactive imagination".
Yet when we look at the study of the paranormal, it is at the level of physics in Newton's days, a few back garden experimenters and enthusiasts. Where are the megabuck investments in research, where are the endowed seats in universities?
This is why I have an open mind on the paranormal, there is simply not an adequate level of science being applied.
We have a few double blind studies on telepathy, dowsing etc, which were statistically inconclusive, that's the sum total.
Now look at the history of the neutrino, it took years to prove its existence, yet scientists were convinced it existed and never stopped looking. They did not accept one, two or even ten failures to prove its existence as proof that it did not exist.
Telepathy has been a know concept for millenia, yet a few brief experiments that failed to demonstrate it and science dismisses telepathy as a fallacy.
This to me is a perfect example of double standards.
comment 31
FelixQui date : 05/04/2008 time : 00.46
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

No, Hermano,
My imagination is in excellent working order. I can imagine all of the things you have imagined.
The difference is that I require some good reason before I assert my imaginings as being facts, even to myself. Most of the funny ideas that flit through my mind, however entrancing, never see the light of day, except perhaps as a useful "what if" scenario, because I can't find any reason to believe them myself, let alone tell them to another as if they were solid fact. Or even remotely likely.

Many weird ideas are worth considering. The very weird ideas of quantum mechanics have in their favour a vast and growing body of accurate experimental confirmation. There is much debate over how exactly some aspects of quantum mechanics should be interpreted, but there is no serious doubt that it is extremely well supported by very solid evidence and that it works on a daily basis.

Interestingly, I am also certain that there are such things as UFOs. I'm equally certain that there is no good reason today to think that alien visitors are a plausible explanation. But I have no trouble at all imagining that possibility. Mere possibility is not good grounds for belief.

I am also certain that there is something in alien abductions. That something is in the province of human psychology, not competition amongst inter-galactic civilisations.

Real science does begin in imagination, but not forever unbridled imagination. Careful attention to observed facts also plays a useful role in the practise of real science. Without the later and the bridles, we would still be literally using horses and carts.
comment 30
Hermano_Lobo date : 04/04/2008 time : 23.45
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez

I am almost certain that there is such a thing as UFO's.
I am also certain that there is something in Alien Abductions.
Yet I cannot prove any of this.

I have been interested in the subject all my life, yet still I learn something new. Which is also true about aviation.
One strange thing, claims of 'Alien Abduction' amongst Buddhists and ceratin Evangelical Christian groups seesm quite rare. People who delve into or practice the Occult, have more of a problem.

Why this is so, I haven't the faintest idea ?

I think to a certain extent, Felix, is totally devoid of imagination. Which is where the real science begins.
Without dreams and ideas, we would all be following Felix on his horse and cart.
comment 29
FelixQui date : 04/04/2008 time : 22.19
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

In comment 25, Ian raised an issue that merits further comment: fraud.

Are water dowsers frauds? This is not something I know any thing about, except that some people claim to be able to detect underground water. It sounds unlikely, but that is a matter to settle by relatively simple research.

Are some dowsers frauds? I could guess almost certainly that at least some are. It's an easy way to make a living, after all. That there are frauds does not mean the phenomena is not real. The proof is in the reproducibility of claimed results. I haven't checked, so won't make any pronouncement either way: I don't know.

Ian then posed a more interesting statement: "Perhaps the scientist who measures these minute variations to detect minerals is also a fraud." Of course, the answer is that in science, there are occasional frauds. However, when something goes against an established body of knowledge, people take a very close look at it to see if it stands up. They check that the results can be reproduced. They examine the exact methods used for errors. The greater teh impact on well established theory, the more rigorous is the standard required. Because of this, there is relatively little fraud in science, and most is fairly promptly exposed, which usually means the end of teh career of the liar.
Exactly the same standards should be applied to claims about the supernatural (the usual definition, not Ian's as discussed in comment 13 below) and the alien tourist theory of UFOs. Those claims pretend to scientific standards, and so deserve to be held to that standard.
comment 28
FelixQui date : 04/04/2008 time : 22.02
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ian,
No, I can not give a scientific explanation of SHC that would cover all the reported examples.
The wick theory would appear to be as good as any so far. But due allowance should also be made for criminal acts.

I couldn't find any of the eye witness accounts you mentioned. Do you have a reference to any?

That neither I, nor scientists in general, can not now give any fully satisfying explanation means that there is something that needs to be explained and that further research is required. I'm not sure what the point of your question was. To establish that there are things for which we do not currently have a good explanation? I've already said that a couple of times in this blog. To establish something else? What?
comment 27
FelixQui date : 04/04/2008 time : 21.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Hermano,
I actually made a stronger claim than the one that there is no evidence in the public domain. Namely, that unlike the evidence that supports the belief that the CIA has secret evidence on terrrorist groups and activities, there is no evidence that there is any secret evidence on alien visits to earth.
comment 26
Ian date : 04/04/2008 time : 21.38
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Felix, I will offer you a simple challenge, can you give a scientific explanation of Spontaneous Human Combustion, this has been well documented by the police, Fire and ambulance services, there are even eye witness accounts of these events.
Please don't offer the "wick" theory, that is whistling in the wind. In a modern crematorium it takes 800 degree to achieve anything like the same result and takes several hours.
comment 25
Ian date : 04/04/2008 time : 21.27
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Narc, people wouldn't waste money sinking boreholes if dowsers were ineffective. Sure they are not always correct because more than water can cause anomalies in the Earth's magnetic field.
Perhaps the scientist who measures these minute variations to detect minerals is also a fraud. Did you know that many ancient meteor strike site are detected by these methods.
comment 24
Hermano_Lobo date : 04/04/2008 time : 20.36
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez

Correct: No evidence in the public domain.

Crystal Skulls are amusing coffee table books, like the pyramid on Mars. Although I have seen a crystal skull in a museum in London - quite remarkable.

The more serious links like Prof John E. Mack, whose book you refuse to read. Are a different matter entirely.
comment 23
FelixQui date : 04/04/2008 time : 20.29
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Hermano,
I notice you did not present the "classified evidence". If it is unknown, then it is, necessarily, not evidence for your claims. What is not known can not be evidence. Perhaps it's evidence to someone somewhere, and certainly the CIA has lots of evidence about terrorist groups which evidence they suppress for very sound reasons (I'm not against all censorship - ignorance has it's uses), but for any statement I might make, the information held in secret by the CIA is not, and can not be, supporting evidence. However, there is plenty of evidence available to support my belief that terrorism is real: the events of 9/11 are such evidence. That evidence is well known and strongly supports the claim that terrorism happens. The tapes of bin Laden suggest that terrorists remain intent on committing further such acts. This publicly available evidence is strong support for the further belief that the CIA has a lot more evidence that they do keep secret, but so long as it is kept secret, it necessarily is not public evidence of anything, and can not be used to support any claim. The CIA sometimes has to make tough decisions as to whether to act against suspected terrorists or not because to act would in fact reveal to others that they do have evidence against them, and that exposure might do more harm than good.

In the case of UFOs being alien craft, there is no such publicly available evidence, and the conspiracy theory required to explain that is so far beyond anything plausible that the proper response is to dismiss any such explanation. There is, simply, no reason to believe that there are vast files any where that document aliens visiting our cute little planet.

As usual, your point misses completely. I do not need to have access to top secret evidence to say that there is no publicly available evidence, nor do I need access to top secret evidence to say that there is no evidence that such top secret evidence exists. The whole point of the weird web sites you have previously referred me to is that they claim to have actual evidence of alien craft, pyramid palaces on Mars, amazing pre-Greek crystal skulls and the like, all of which claims are rubbish.

If you told me that the US had an aircraft in 1964 "that flew at 100,000ft at a speed of Mach4" I might not have believed you, but would certainly have believed that it was at least possible and consistent with what was well known at the time. When I later found out that it really did exist, there would be no great shock. It would fit in readily with what was already known. The same is not true of alien visits, or an advanced alien driven civilisation that pre-dated the Greeks.

All my debunking is strictly a hobby.
comment 22
narcisuss date : 04/04/2008 time : 20.29
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I  come in peace :)

I wont comment more on this issue, because I've said it and you've heard my views before. Felix's views often resonnate much with my own and he is able to articulate them much clearer and with more authority (I'm mostly fluff).

But to those of you who constantly claim that people like Felix, and sometimes myself, are narrow minded. I would beg to differ.

"narrow-minded - lacking tolerance or flexibility or breadth of view"
Now who fits the definition the most?
Person A: who says that god/ufo's/unicorns exist and there is hidden proof, I'm sure of it and your rational arguments are just you being cynical and it will not rock my beliefs.
or
Person B: who says that anything is possible. Some things are more probable explanations, but show me your logic and your proof and I will be open to anything.
?
comment 21
Hermano_Lobo date : 04/04/2008 time : 20.21
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez

narcisuss-

Be careful of them, they can be very aggresive with their handbags !
comment 20
Hermano_Lobo date : 04/04/2008 time : 20.19
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez

James Oberg, is a UFO debunker, he is well paid by the US government to do so. Felix would like him, unless of course he is James Oberg undercover?

Here are the threads with James Oberg:-

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.conspiracy/browse_thread/thread/27903ceaf19c1a17/dc1dfab139cde722?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Excalibur1308+%2B+il76#dc1dfab139cde722

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.alien.visitors/browse_thread/thread/957e3be3c00d0af1/b7e0894ee13fdc86?hl=en&q=Excalibur1308+%2B+il76&lnk=ol&
comment 19
Hermano_Lobo date : 04/04/2008 time : 20.12
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez

Felix thinks Bob Lazar a fantacist.

This is what a friend wrote:

If Bob Lazar was an 'out and out liar', how did he know when test flights were being carried out at Area 51? How did his name appear in a phone book at Los Alamos? How did he get a W2 from the DNI ? (http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Bob_Laz ... zar_W2.gif ).
If he has no scientific expertise, how could he build rocket cars or run his company, United Nuclear? If I recall correctly, he also has a home-made particle accelerator. He also sells kits to convert your car to run on hydrogen. But, heck, he got busted for writing an accounting program for a brothel, so he must be telling lies (sarcasm).

Travis Walton has stuck by his story for over 30 years and has passed lie detector tests, as have his friends.

There is about as much 'solid' evidence for quantum theory as there is for UFOs, yet QT is still taught in universities.

In Graham Hancock's book, 'Underworld', he suggests that any worldwide civilisation (or several civilisations that traded with each other) would likely have been located along coastlines (as most major cities today are coastal). At the end of the last Ice Age, sea levels rose, inundating millions of square miles of land and covering or destroying any settlements/cities that might have thrived there before.

I don't expect a cynic to accept any of this, though, because cynics never do. Philip Klass was often called a sceptic, but he really was a cynic. He must have seen good evidence for UFOs many, many times over the years, but never accepted any of it. That's what cynics do."
comment 18
narcisuss date : 04/04/2008 time : 20.08
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I  come in peace :)

Hermano, that's true, I stand corrected. That's not the only strange thing they have in san francisco; actually some hippies time-warped there and still walk the streets.
comment 17
Hermano_Lobo date : 04/04/2008 time : 20.07
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez

narcisuss,

The evidence is in San Francisco.

Plenty of fairies there !

I was directing my comments at Felix
comment 16
narcisuss date : 04/04/2008 time : 20.00
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I  come in peace :)

"There is no evidence of fairies"

" smarty-pants how do you know that the Americans DO NOT have the evidence ? As I said before, you must have privileged access to Above Top Secret Information."

ok, the americans might have evidence of fairies
comment 15
Hermano_Lobo date : 04/04/2008 time : 19.52
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez

Here is some more self-defeating rubbish from 'another blogger'.

I would like to know how you have access to the classified files at Wight Patterson Air Force Base? You claim unequivocally that there is 'No' evidence of UFO's. Since you have access to classified material, you are able to make this statement.

If I told you in 1964 that the Americans had an aircraft that flew at 100,000ft at a speed of Mach4. You would laugh, but it would be Kelly Johnson having a quiet chuckle. The aircraft had already been flying for quite a while as the A11, then becoming the famous Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.
If the Americans want to hush up something, they do it.
So smarty-pants how do you know that the Americans DO NOT have the evidence ? As I said before, you must have privileged access to Above Top Secret Information.

This blog is not about UFO's;you don't know enough about the subject. It is about your inability to think out of the box.

Are you James Oberg ? He thinks Russian IL-76 pilots mistake Venus for a UFO.
Here is another link for you to trash:-

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.alien.visitors/browse_thread/thread/8e3a183b2aebffa8/e12245c7b1c3e9d6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Excalibur1308+%2B+James+Oberg#e12245c7b1c3e9d6
comment 14
narcisuss date : 04/04/2008 time : 19.47
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I  come in peace :)

It's not that it's impossible, i'd just like to see it work..
comment 13
FelixQui date : 04/04/2008 time : 19.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ian,
If you want to define "supernatural" to mean "anything that we can not yet explain" then of course many things are, by definition, supernatural, but honesty requires that you clearly state at the beginning, not in comment 9, that you are using teh word in a way that differs markedly from what is normal. Most people's definition of supernatural is more along the lines of "beyond or contrary to the laws of science or nature", not merely "beyond our current ability to explain". On your definition, the persistent belief in UFOs as visiting aliens appears supernatural. At least, I have trouble explaining it. On this unusual definiton, you agree with me.
I have no problem believing that dowsing might work. The difference is that I would have said we might not know how it works, whilst saying it was "supernatural" would sound decidely wrong, or at least very "unnatural" to me. In fact, I would have said that whatever the explanation, it was not "supernatural", which statement would be meaningless on your proposed definition.
"I don't know what the correct explanation of ghost experiences is," is not the same as "ghost experiences require a supnatural explanation," but on your definition, these two statement mean exactly the same thing, or perhaps the second statement is impossible on such a definition. An explanation could not be supernatural where the very meaning of "supernatural" is "someting that can not be explained." As soon as there was an explanation, it necessarily would no longer be "supernatural."
_________________